Several people around Larry Nasser have resigned. Lawsuits are happening. It's not just about one abuser. He had accomplices. The powerful protected each other. Nasser isn't unique and the Borg isn't too special to avoid the consequences.
Larry Nasser..... WOW....
A horrible situation. A vile individual.
Because the point of this thread, at least how I see it, is that the GB has to be careful because legally they may be held liable for any actions that witnesses commit against children. And DD said that he hopes that it will change our society.
My point is two-fold.
First, would you hold lawmakers complicit in the actions of those that hurt children because they allow for the age of consent to be so low such as at 13 or 14 years old? Would they be held responsible?
Second, that different societies view things differently even though you may think it is cut an dry such as when an adult is having sex with a child. Some societies have decided that the threshold is lower and others view it higher. And these are not just s***hole countries these are some modern and progressive societies.
Now, the MSU women Rowers have come forward with their alligations against him. He was their doctor from 1998 to 2016. Eighteen (18) years.
Some in authority at MSU continued for years to cover up abuse so as not to tarnish the "good" name of their school, also they wanted to keep their job and paychecks coming without any care for their students welfare.
WT / JW..org does the exact same thing! Trying to preserve the "good" name of their manmade up religion because they like living at their lakeside estate, and never worry about "working" in the real world. They have no regard for anyone but themselves!
John Davis Also, court after court has ruled that Watchtower does not have a fiduciary responsibility and that there is no special relation between congregants and the religion. Also just as in California, other states have shown that there is no duty to warn or a duty to protect.
I appreciate you are talking about the US, I also know you have a pretty extensive knowledge of the law and how it works. That being said, surely the ARC, being that it acknowledged Watchtower culpability in not providing it's duty of care, has some bearing on US cases, both as it is a common law jurisdiction and a court with persuasive authority.
As I'm no expert ( and not from the US)could you elucidate your position a little? I also was under the impression in most cases Watchtower agreed to pay compensation before any judgement was reached, is this not so?
The GB proclaim they are subject to "Caesar's" laws where no law of god is "broken".
You mention "non sh1thole countries" with ages of consent as low as 13 or 14 (I paraphrase). These (non sh1thole) countries apply the law in a non-blanket way.
For example - if a 15 year old and a 14 year old seem to freely consent to each others sexual activity (without coercion) it might result in being dealt with in such away that neither get a criminal record.
If an adult has a consensual relationship with a 13 year old it will rightly be treated differently.
The stink that rises from the GB and their organisation is not due to two teenagers fumbling in the dark.
It is from their being culpable of having records of adults abusing children and young teens and then withholding that information (from other congregants, legal agencies etc.) and even allowing perpetrators to later become or stay as elders, pioneers and min servants.
With regards to US lawyers using the ARC as either common law jurisdiction or persuasive authority. I am not sure but it does seem very unlikely because well the ARC was not a court. There was no due process in the same fashion as a court in either Australia or the US. That is why the ARC cannot enforce anything it was strictly an advisory role, they duty was to make recommendations to the Australian Federal Government and send things to local police and prosecutors for further investigation or review. If there were further prosecution or judicial action it would have to be with full due process.
It might be possible for a US lawyer to use the ARC testimony as a means to impeach a witness, because I do believe the witnesses testifying before the ARC were put under oath which carries the full penalties of perjury. But that I think would be up to the trial judge to determine if you can use the testimony of another witness in another country to impeach the testimony in an instant case.
I am not sure if the majority of the cases are settled out of court since not all cases are reported in a public fashion by either party nor are they required to do so. I think that because Watchtower settled the famous 18 suits that Zalkin brought like 6 years ago that it is assumed that they are all settled. Many of them are dismissed either because of statute of limitations or failing to state claim, because Watchtower is found to have no fiduciary duty nor a duty to warn or a duty to protect. The famous of those instances include the Conti case where the awarded was shaved down and the court of appeals ruled that there is no duty to warn or protect and that there is only a duty to supervise when conducting congregation sponsored events. The other cases include the Lewis, Berry a recent case in Louisiana and a number of recent cases in Texas were again there is found to be no fiduciary duty. Other courts have also found that there is no civil claim that can be made even if a report is not made.
Courts have found that if there is a criminal statute, that if a case of child abuse is not reported that does not automatically mean that a civil case can be filed against the person who violated that law. Courts have found that only if the statute gives a private claim of action can a civil case be brought. Some have claimed that a civil action would force people to report these instances. But courts have found that if the law doesn’t give the right to a civil claim, that it is up to the legislatures to find a remedy to enforce those laws it is not a right of a victim to enforce it through a civil claim.
Even the ARC recognized that not all 1800 cases that they found would a payment have to be made nor would the victim qualify for a payment. The ARC recommended that payment be made only if they meet certain criteria including that the abuse took place by someone who was an agent of the organization and that the organization had prior notice that previous instances occurred and didn’t do anything not in general with agents but for a specific agent.
You're actually incorrect. A number of countries age of consents applies even if one of the parties is an adult and even an older adult. Such as in France the age of consent is 13 and can only be prosecuted if there is clear evidence of coesion by the adult. Just recently there were cases in France where the courts refused to prosecute grown men because the child was past the age of consent and there couldn't be clear evidence of any coercion.
In countries such as France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain and other countries around the world an adult could legally have sex with a child as young as 13 or 14 as long as the adult didn't use clear coercion, paid for the intercourse or had authority over the child prior to the act. And these aren't old laws Germany just raised their age of consent from 13 to only 14 very recently. In France, they want to raise the age of Consent from 13 and not to 18 but to only 15.
So again each society chooses what they feel is acceptable, no matter what you think is the right thing to do.